Hours & Info

Tag: monsoon damage

AJR is honored to receive another 5 STAR Better Business Bureau Review. We feel fortunate when clients can locate us and put us to work as their advocate.

As LG says, “On my own, I was offered $2,000 to complete the repairs (which was honestly insulting and almost bordered on criminal) but when AJR stepped in, they were able to increase the final settlement amount of my claim from $2,000 to $162,000. Yes, you read that, right!”

It is that time of year here in Arizona, monsoon season is in full swing. Natural disasters are a normal occurrence over the summertime and consumers should be on their toes.

Here is an recent article dated July 12, 2018, released by the Idaho Department of Insurance, making the public aware of unlicensed individuals who are acting as public insurance adjusters for losses from hail storms. Different state, same issue. Public needs to be aware of individuals they hire to represent them with insurance claims.

This article points out an interesting situation that everyone should be aware of.

“Public adjusters often have mutual relationships with contractors, and may even be compensated by contractors who are performing work in conjunction with damages caused by the insured loss; however, any compensation or financial interest must be disclosed by the public adjuster in writing to you as the policyholder”.

AJR has NO “kick-back” relationship with any contractor, roofer, plumber. We do not accept any money from others working on your job. Our number one goal is to maximize your settlement for you, then get paid our percentage from the policyholder. No settlement money is exchanged elsewhere regarding your claim.

It is always best to research anyone you plan to hire for representation with a covered insurance claim. Some good sites that help with research to locate licensed, reputable firms are the Better Business Bureau, The National Association of Public Insurance Adjusters, NAPIA and the Arizona Department of Insurance.

Many times we have heard about adjusters telling policyholders they plan to “sister” a joice to repair a damaged property. This means they are leaving a charred piece and prop it up with a new piece of framing. The example below illustrates why this is not an acceptable answer to a damaged frame for a property.

Q

We are a public adjusting firm. Our client’s home is insured on an independently filed HO 00 03 05 01.

A recent fire did much damage to the home. Part of that damage was the charring of the framing. Instead of replacing the charred framing members, the insurer wants to use a technique called “sistering.” This technique involves leaving the charred piece in place and installing a new piece next to it. The adjuster says that sistering is an acceptable means of repair and refuses to actually replace the damaged framing.

We have enclosed a copy of the policy for your perusal.

California Subscriber

A

The policy you sent is worded differently from the ISO policy. The ISO homeowners policy promises to replace damaged building property with “material of like kind and quality and for like use.” It makes no mention of how this is to be done. It does not place any limitations on construction methods to be used. The ISO policy would pay to replace the charred timbers with new ones.

On the other hand, your client’s policy says that it will repair or replace the damaged property “with construction techniques and materials commonly used by the building trades in standard new construction.”

“Sistering,” as we understand it, means that the damaged frame is propped up by the timber fastened next to it. The adjuster may be correct in that this technique is an accepted means of structure repair—repair of an existing structure. However, the policy calls for the use of “common construction techniques and materials used by the building trades in standard new construction.” By definition, sistering could not be a technique used in new construction.

The wording of the policy has committed the insurer to replacing the frame members with new pieces.